Irish election unlikely to spell end of two-and-a-half party system

This morning, polls opened in Ireland in one of the most hotly-anticipated elections in the history of the State. The coalition, while not a foregone conclusion, will likely have Fine Gael’s Enda Kenny at its head – a situation that seemed less likely some months ago.

Since 1923, all Irish governments have been led either by Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael, or their precursor parties. The division between the two parties is historical, rather than ideological, representing the anti- and pro-Treaty sides in the Irish Civil War. Both parties share a broadly centre-right set of policies. The Irish left is divided, with PES sister party Labour likely to become the junior coalition partner to Fine Gael. Sinn Féin is likely to increase its vote share, while the United Left Alliance could conceivably regain Socialist MEP Joe Higgins’ Dáil seat. The Greens are tainted by their association with Fianna Fáil in the last Government; their electoral fortunes look bleak. Furthermore, the already comparatively high number of independent representatives in the Dáil looks set to increase further as disillusionment with the two main parties kicks in.

But from last summer until quite recently, there was serious discussion of the ending of the ‘two-and-a-half-party’ system in Ireland, as the traditionally third-placed Labour stormed ahead in the polls, with its leader Eamon Gilmore the most popular choice for Taoiseach. For the first time, the Labour Party dared to consider the prospect of a Labour-led Government. Tellingly, this slogan has been quietly retired in recent weeks as the election campaign progresses. But what has caused the sudden rush back towards the more traditional Fine Gael?

I would argue that several factors have contributed to the decline of Labour’s poll rating in recent weeks. Firstly, this election is all about the economy. Labour wants to create jobs and stimulate investment, including renegotiating the country’s debt repayments, and may have fallen foul of the mistrust of left-wing parties on economic issues.

Secondly, it is commonly expected that the traditional voting behaviour where families still support FF or FG would break down as the generations move further away from Civil War divisions. However, Irish citizens abroad are unable to vote. Ballotbox.ie estimates that there are 3.1 million voters in Ireland, with a further 800,000 abroad who are disenfranchised. As young unemployed graduates emigrate, the progressive vote may be going with them.

Thirdly, Labour as a socially progressive party has been subject to dirty-tricks campaigning in recent weeks. Labour is the only party with a pro-choice policy in a country where abortion remains illegal. The Guardian reports negative campaigning against Labour from anti-abortion groups in recent weeks. Labour also supports holding a referendum on extending full marriage rights to gay couples – a divisive issue in often socially-conservative Ireland.

Fine Gael are unlikely to take the 83 seats needed to go it alone in Government today. The electoral mathematics make a coalition with Labour the most likely, but not the only possibility. In a coalition dominated by Fine Gael, Labour will face an uphill struggle in Government.

Christine Quigley is Equalities Officer of the Young Fabians.

What is government for?

This isn’t a glib question. Or the start of some quest for anarchy. Rather, it strikes me that this is the one question which is absent from much of the noise about deficits and cuts and economic policies.

Politicos claim the state is either too big or not doing enough, too powerful or not powerful enough, and that is either a good thing or a bad thing (or you’re indifferent), depending on your tribe. Cuts are either good because they reduce the deficit or the amount of tax payable, or they are bad because some people use the services or it will affect employment.

Economists aren’t much better. Theorists either claim that the only way to stave off impoverishment the likes of which we’ve never seen before is to engage in a slash-and-burn fiscal policy, or they claim that only way to reduce debt is to spend more, presumably on roads and infrastructure which may or may not be used.

But surely discussions around what to cut and when should be second order to a view of what government is actually for? Where intervention is desirable and necessary? And how best to implement any intervention? Economic policy should flow from this, rather than the other way round.

In some senses the role of the government is implicit in much of the discourse, but it isn’t explicit. And in any event, the cart appears before the horse.

We’re in a state where the dominant political ideology is defined by the direction of public expenditure, not about why, where or how the state intervenes. And the opposition to that ideology is just that – pure opposition to an ideology, with no tangible sense of what the government ought to do either.

In my mind this leads to some pretty perverse outcomes. For example – surveys claiming public sector workers, if made redundant, would struggle to find new employment being used as a justification to keep them on the public payroll (it’s not clear to me this is an unambiguously good thing); or cuts to existing benefits whose wider consequences seem ill-considered relative to the benefit the taxpayer derives.

Seemingly, not being able to articulate a vision for government beyond the amount it contributes to public expenditure is a problem for the right. And not being able to articulate a vision for government which justifies its contribution to public expenditure is a problem for the left.

Of course, it might be naively optimistic to hope for anything different.

Alex Baker is Secretary of the Young Fabians.

The Perpetual Crisis in British EU Membership

Across Brussels and in its member states, rarely is there debate on the EU, its institutions and their popularity (or lack of) and the word crisis doesn’t enter the conversation.

Putting aside for a moment, the various international crises that the EU institutions and its member states are engaged in, from the economic crisis, the North African and Middle East crisis and climate change, a perpetual crisis of confidence afflicts this trans-national political structure. And of all the EU member states, Britain seems the most troubled by its membership of the EU.

So this weekend the Fabian Society gathered voices ranging from Shirley Williams to a UKIP MEP to interrogate this continued crisis in confidence of British membership of the EU, debating the question should we be, ‘In, Out or somewhere in between’?.

Sunder Katwala advocates an In/Out Referenda on EU Membership to ‘force the question’ and thus ‘lance the boil’ and bring about a reconciliation of public opinion and the views of the pro European ‘political class’.

But would a yes vote, lance the boil? Would the reluctant British, on a poor turnout with a potential marginal win for the yes campaign suddenly feel a sense of reconciliation with Brussels? I doubt it.  

Historically, it’s worth remembering that Britain has always been a reluctant political European but enthusiastically economic Europeans. It is also worth acknowledging that with the increased politicisation of the EU, the debates in Brussels are less about whether one nation is winning over another, but more about how the European left is struggling to articulate itself.

The political right is in control at European level, in all major institutions, establishing fiscal retrenchment, and rolling back public spending with a knock on to earnings and living standards across Europe. Couple this with the continued liberalisation of labour markets and the centre right’s view of what to use the EU for is certainly in triumph. It’s the European left which is in crisis.

If the European left fails to articulate how to use the EU institutions to achieve our political objectives, then the continued alienation of our voters from EU institutions can be expected.

For voters economic stability and state confidence matters but so too does confidence in the political process and the institutions. What exists in Britain is a crisis of confidence in the capacity of the EU to solve our collective problems and a perception that the EU institutions serve the elites and not the many.

For the left to emerge from the doldrums and to tackle Euro scepticism head on, we need not to be defending the EU for its own sake, but to set out our vision for what we would do with its power under our leadership.

There is undoubtedly a crisis of trust in the EU and in public policy, which afflicts the left harder than the right. The calls for a British referendum on EU membership are symptomatic of distrust in politics and an information deficiency.

So would a referendum on EU membership resolve British tension on EU membership? Will it lance the boil? No. The crisis is much wider than that.

It’s a crisis of confidence in the ability of democratic institutions to solve a crisis in capitalism.  

For the left to renew, we need to set out a credible plan for regaining the confidence and legitimacy of our voters in our ability to set the political institutions at work in serving their needs.

Countdown to AV

In this guest post, Martin Edobor, a member of the Young Fabian Science and Society Network, argues in favour of AV.

Next week Jeremy Corbyn MP will introduce the first UCL & King’s College Young Fabians AV Debate. This will give the Young Fabians a chance to reflect on the referendum, and think deeply about the implications voting reform may have on our political system. With the referendum a few months away, it is important that we have an open and frank debate, where individuals from both sides can put forward their argument.

For me a move towards an Alternative vote is a move towards a more progressive electoral system, in which the voice of the voter would be empowered. Under AV a prospective parliamentary candidate will need to gain at least 50% share of preference votes before they are elected. This gives parliamentarians a stronger mandate as public officials. It also avoids the situation in which MPs can be elected with less than half the overall share of the vote, which currently happens under the first past the post system.

AV would produce a result which is representative of the amount of votes cast. Therefore it a system that is fairer than first past the post.

If AV had been the electoral system used in the 2005 general election, Labour would have gained 8 more seats, the Liberal Democrats 9 more seats and the Conservatives would have dropped 15 seats (BBC). This needs to be clearly put forward to the public: an AV system is both more democratic and fairer than FPTP. In order for Britain to move towards a more modern democracy, we must begin by adopting a more progressive electoral system.

Unnecessary surgery

In this guest post, Young Fabian Member Tom Keeley argues against the latest set of NHS reforms.

Listening to Andrew Lansley you might believe that GP Consortia are the cure for everything wrong in the NHS.  An idea that will, at once, improve care, reduce cost and give people a say in their treatment.  The “silver bullet” bringing our health outcomes in line with Europe’s.

However, a cursory glance back at two decades of attempts to move care closer to general practitioners should leave anyone in doubt of these claims.  Or perhaps anyone without their ministerial career staked on it.

Governments of all colours have repeatedly returned to the idea of GP commissioning.  Their stated aim is always “improving care”; while in reality their concern is cost control.  Initiatives from GP fundholding to Practice-based Commissioning from total purchasing pilots to locality commissioning have all shown the limitations of GPs buying health care.  Limitations that should be great enough to stop anybody from handing over the majority of the £110 billion NHS budget.

Acting as the buyers of health care doctors can modify their referral rates, make very limited “one off” savings in their prescription costs and exert a downward pressure on waiting times.  But, this comes at the sizeable cost of increasing inequity and reducing patient satisfaction.  GPs have been shown to be incapable of reliably influencing the organisation and delivery of hospital care through budget negotiations.  And, with this ineffectualness comes increased management and transaction costs, as the buyers of health care lose their economy of scale.

When GPs are given a budget responsibility they understandably, and quite wisely, revert to what they know: providing more community services.  While there is good evidence to suggest that the provision of primary care services can improve health and reduce the pressure on hospitals, it is far from being the answer to every health problem.  Furthermore, this throws up an obvious and unavoidable conflict of interests.  GP consortia could commission themselves to provide care.

The greatest problem however, is reserved for the fact that in general GPs are not keen on the idea, or prepared for the reality.  While a good number of “pathfinder” consortia have voluntarily formed, this is about self-preservation.  These pathfinders have, very wisely, given themselves two years to gain experience in the buying of health care, before taking full control of and responsibility for the budget in April 2013.  Lansley should not mistake this for enthusiasm: when a gun is held to your head, jumping off the cliff is a good option.

The obstacles to consortia succeeding are considerable.  Lansley has perceived the limited success of past efforts to be an indication of potential; when in fact it is simply the limit.  GPs should have a role in the commissioning of health care, but this should be limited to a role in the commissioning of primary care, without full devolution of the budget.  If the government of the day seriously wants GPs to succeed in doing anything more, a full 5-year regional trial of policy and a massive overhaul of medical training should be considered an absolute minimum.

In his shadow role Lansley had every potential of being a competent Secretary of State for Health.  A knowledgeable minister who would protect the NHS from the worst of the cuts, while allowing it a period of calm in which to make the required budgetary savings.  As it is, he has, to quote David Nicholson (NHS chief exec), proposed the biggest change management system in the world – one so large “that you can see it from space”.  He has done this with little grounds for hope of success.

Cameron & Clegg: Fiddling while Egypt burns?

As the world waits to see how events in Egypt unfold, we are all holding our breath. Egyptian cities remain tinderboxes ready to go up should the tug of war between democracy and autocracy go the wrong way. During the last 17 days, David Cameron and other western leaders have done nothing, simply hoping for the best while doing their upmost to ignore the gigantic white elephant in the room: their pro-autocrat policies.

The New York Times has pointed out that Cameron, Clegg and others “badly miscalculated” when endorsing Omar Suleiman to lead the transition to democracy. It should come as no shock that he is trying to retain as much power for the Mubarak regime as possible: he is a Mubarak man man. What really gets me though is the hypocrisy of western leaders.

As the Mubarak administration looks set to fall and stay fallen, we are now hearing endless western ministers denouncing the Mubarak regime. This is as should be. But why are they only speaking up now? Of course, there are issues of real politik and regional stability but western governments have gone far further than simply providing the military aid that is the necessary grubby lubricant of international diplomacy. They have lent Mubarak legitimacy.

They have allowed his henchmen to contaminate some of the highest international offices. Remember Boutros Boutros- Ghali? How did he rise to be the 6th Director General of the UN? After a career dedicated to serving Egyptian despots, including ten years as Minister of State for Foreign Affairs under Hosni Mubarak.

It strikes me as deeply worrying that liberal western governments were willing to be led by a man who owes his career to a corrupt, murderous authoritarian leader.

We also now hear of moves the Swiss government are making regarding the freezing of Mubarak bank accounts. Figures range widely but it clear the man has squirreled away many billions…BILLIONS…of the Egyptian people’s money over his twenty year rule.

Swiss bankers knew about this. America knew about this. Cameron and Clegg knew about this. Why only speak up now? Surely, there has to be a better way to achieve our regional aims than pandering to men such as Mubarak?

Earlier this week, the White House denounced Suleiman’s statement that “the [Egyptian] people are not ready for democracy”. They called it “particularly unhelpful”. What I find particular unhelpful is the excessive hypocrisy of western leaders when it comes to upholding liberal values.

The recent events in Egypt and Cameron’s depressingly accommodating stance brought back memories of Augusto Pinochet popping across to England to visit his good friend Margret Thatcher.

Western Governments should not engage in this way with tyrants that suppress and murder their own people. Cameron and Clegg should stop fiddling at the margins and start protecting the liberal values us Brits hold dear.

Daniel Bamford is the Young Fabian Networks Officer.

The Geek shall Inherit the Earth

Earlier this week, I whiled away a convivial evening with a throng of self-confessed science Geeks at the Old Monk pub in the heart of the Westminster village. By golly they were angry (and this was before a drop of Extra Special Bitter or Brewer’s Best had been spilled in anger).

What had roused them from their scientific service, from their molecules and molluscs, from their retinal research? In a word: government.

We were there with the Westminster Sceptics to discuss the shocking absence of evidence in policy making and how the government’s refusal to get serious about the reality of policy evaluation continues to harm us all.

The case for evidence-based policy was made strongly, led by ex Lib Dem MP Dr. Evan Harris and Mark Henderson, Science Editor of the Times, who is writing a book on the subject.

The clear consensus that emerged from the non-partisan crowd crystallised around two clear themes.

First, we need to ditch the idea of the ‘U-turn’ being the ultimate insult to sling in the direction of principled MPs. Parliamentarians are professional politicians; they are not professional academics, technical experts or people charged with running public service delivery organisations on an operational basis.

It is right that MPs should propose theses to be tested and put them to consultation. The conservative political culture that slams back against changes in direction after the expert evidence has been counted is all wrong. It leads to knowingly sub-optimal decisions, made by a government who should have our interests (not their own political self-image) at heart.

We should publicly celebrate MPs like Labour’s Caroline Flint, who when Minister of State for Public Health, openly refined her views in relation to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (2008) upon hearing the full gamut of expert views. She opened herself up to Tory criticsm but her actions were good for the legislation and good for country. It is sad I need to go back to 2008 to find a relevant example.

Second, we need to stop being afraid of using controlled public policy experiments for fear they may show the government was wrong. If that be the case: hurrah; it shows us how to make things better. It is depressing that during recent changes to how Cannabis was classified no one made a concerted effort to track the impact of the changes in line with best experimental practice.

Relatedly, select committees must not step back from continuously tracking and evaluating policy, something we see far too little of. Let’s see less bilious words being hurled incompetent bankers hauled up before the select committees. Let’s see more critical evaluation of how we get our kids to read better, get our elderly people healthier, make housing more affordable.

If we make these uncontroversial and (almost) costless changes to the way government goes about governing, it will be better for all us. Perhaps then one wit at the pub the other night was right: it is time for the Geek to inherit the earth.

Daniel is, according to some philosopher or other. He is also Young Fabians Networks Office and is hosting an event at Imperial College on March 22nd to explore these issues further. Please come along.

Out of credit

Are lending institutions solely responsible for individuals getting into debt they struggle to, or cannot, repay?

I ask because the campaign to ‘End Legal Loan Sharking‘ – organised by Compass and supported in Parliament by, amongst others, Stella Creasy MP – seems to lay the blame primarily, if not wholly, at their door; borrowers themselves appear largely blameless. The language (‘spin’?) used by campaigners reinforces this view – borrowers are ‘exploited’ by ‘unscrupulous’ ‘sharks’.

The availability of easy credit does not mean borrowers have to use it, just as the availability of all manner of artery-clogging junk at the supermarket does not mean people have to eat it (and we rarely give sympathy to people who get fat because of their own greed).

It’s of course a legitimate concern that some low-income households finds themselves in spirals of debt, and right that elected officials should seek to remedy this.

But there are other households who have simply made bad decisions. And so ignoring the role of the individual in the equation is a major omission.

In the personal debt toolkit, caps on charges levied on payday loans might have their place (although I’m not personally convinced they would be effective). But where are the calls for better financial education?

Why are people, who for no obvious rational reason take on more debt than they can realistically afford, seen as victims? Do we really believe that they are forced, against their will, to sign up to legally binding credit agreements?* Why are those that lend solely to blame?**

The Left can’t and shouldn’t ignore the role of the individual and their decisions when it comes to personal debt – demand is just as important as supply. And no amount of regulation on lenders will stop some people making stupid decisions.

Maybe the End Legal Loansharking campaign is just symptomatic of a broader problem of debt in Britain – that none of us, really, likes to take personal responsibility for bad money management.

That is a rather ominous thought as we work out how to avoid another financial crisis.

Alex Baker is Secretary of the Young Fabians.

*Some might suggest that consumers are confused by the true cost of credit agreements they enter into, but one of the interesting aspects of payday credit is that the charges levied are arguably more transparent than for other forms of loan/credit agreement.

**As an example of the potential weaknesses of the arguments advanced by the End Legal Loan Sharking campaign, it is not particularly apparent why lenders would want the majority of people it lends to to be unable to repay – this is obviously an unsustainable and unprofitable business model. The question of fees levied on these charges then becomes trivial, as it is unlikely to be paid.

The Geeks and the Viagra: A Cautionary Tale

I’ve just heard that Mark Henderson, Science Editor of the Times, has been busy. He’s writing a new book about why politicians should sit up and take notice of scientists. Playing to type, it’s called ‘The Geek Manifesto’ and is on track to be released next Spring. It is an important publication.

Mark’s central thesis is that science and politics are natural bedfellows yet don’t get as much out of one another as they could. Science doesn’t always get the support it deserves from government: poor funding, badly-framed regulation, and policy initiatives such as the immigration cap hamper researchers and their work.

Equally, politics doesn’t draw often enough on the problem-solving power of the scientific method — the best tool yet developed for working out what works and how we can make things better.

The book celebrates the emerging confidence and activism of passionate scientists – Mark’s geeks – and will explain how this emerging force can change politics with more vigour than a ball of Caesium that’s getting too friendly with a bowl of water:

This book could not be any timelier I reckon. To date there has been precious little substance to the coalition government’s science message. Whilst Obama’s $20bn research payout in the 2009 stimulus package showed his commitment to science’s role in America’s economic future, the coalition’s rhetoric has so far ceased at merely noting the importance of science in the long term transition to a knowledge economy.

But then the facts. We’ve just heard that Cameron just could not get himself up to defend one of Britain’s most historic scientific facilitates from closure. Pfizer will close their Sandwich plant- famous for the serendipitous discovery of Viagra- with the ensuing loss of up to 2,400 jobs. Where is Pfizer retreating to? America.

Obama 1 – Conservative led government 0 (D Cameron OG).

These are exactly the sort of jobs we should be seeking to protect and nurture: high skilled, huge social impact, manufacturing jobs. Instead, Clan Cameron has pushed Pfizer and their jobs out the door. Worrying times to be a scientist.

The chronic lack of investment in scientific industry casts into doubt whether the jobs will exist for tomorrow’s scientists to produce the world leading innovations that the coalition is pinning our future economic hopes on. Short-sighted decisions, like the one above, show the coalition has lost the plot on this one. They need to revisit their periodic tables.

With serious concerns hanging like a Icelandic volcanic cloud over our best and brightest science graduates, what better time to join the Young Fabian Science & Society Network to debate these issues when we meet at Imperial on 22nd March?

Labour’s leading Science spokesperson, Chi Onwurah MP, will chair what promises to be a contentious and thought provoking evening. Email dbamford@theyoungfabians.org.uk if you want to know more.